Mumbai Court July 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shobhechi Daru Utpadan Kharedi Vikri Sangh Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1997
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR321; 1998(1)BomCR258; 1997(3)MhLj215
ORDERV.R. Datar, J.1. The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The land Survey No. 109, admeasuring 12 Acres and 21 gunthas assessed at Rs. 3.12, belonged to respondent No. 2 Nana Maruti Kashid of Katraj. Taluka Haveli, District Pune. Though some portion of the land viz. 6 acres was previously under cultivation and crops like Shalu etc. were grown, from the year 1964-65, the entire land appears to have been left fallow. Respondent No. 2 agreed to sell 8 acres of land from Survey No. 109 in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, made an application to the Collector of Pune, for grant of permission for non-agricultural use of the said land. This application was made on 21-9-1966. It however, appears, though facts are not on record, that the petitioner -Society made an application on 26-9-1966 for grant of permission to purchase the land as required under section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR937(Bom)
1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that notwithstanding the notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes the assessee is entitled to deduction of 100 per cent. of the initial contribution to the superannuation fund 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of section 40(c) instead of section 40A(5) for working out the disallowances out of the remuneration and perquisites paid to the employee directors ?' 2. Counsel for the Revenue submits that the controversy in the first question now stands concluded in favour, of the assessee by the decision of this court in CIT v. Mahindra Sintared Pr...
Shri Onkarnath Parshuram Mishra and Another Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)725
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. I have heard Mr. P.P. Hudlikar for the applicant and Mr. S.R. Borulkar, for respondent. I have also perused the impugned order dated 1-2-91, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1986. I find that the courts below have rightly concluded that the applicant was guilty for offence punishable under section 409 of I.P.C. I find that the conviction of the applicant for the said offence is based on good evidence. I also find that the impugned order is not vitiated by any illegality.Sentence, in my view, also does not call for any interference.2. In the result, this revision is dismissed and the rule is discharged. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out his sentence.3. Application dismissed....
Govind Ragho Khairnar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR194; 1998(1)BomCR179
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Shri Govind Ragho Khairnar, the petitioner, by means of this writ petition challenges his suspension vide order dated 28-6-1994, the disciplinary proceedings including the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer, Resolution No. 259 dated 8-7-1996 passed by the respondent No. 1, the show cause notice for removal dated 30th July, 1996 and the Resolution dated 10-10-1996 passed by respondent No. 1 removing him from municipal service.2. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Municipal Commissioner and was confirmed with effect from 28-12-1988 in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that he is very upright officer and has absolutely clean and excellent record of municipal service. On account of his uprightness in working, the petitioner submits that he invited wrath of his superiors and some such politicians whose vested interests were hurt by the petitioner's honest and...
Fabril Gasosa Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: 1997LC545(Bombay); 1997(96)ELT241(Bom)
Chapalgaonkar, J. 1. This petition raises a question whether the rule of limitation as contained in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is applicable for an application under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it stood before the amendment incorporated by the Notification No. 28/88-C.E. (N.T.) with effect from 6th October, 1988. 2. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the amendment effected in Rule 57-I on 6th October, 1988, introducing a clause of limitation in the said rule is inconsequential inasmuch as the same rule of limitation was very much on the statute book in the form of Section 11A and therefore, even before the amendment of Rule 57-I, the respondent State was prohibited from recovering any duty of excise which has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied, or short-paid after the period of six months from the relevant date and if the said non-payment or short-payment or non-levying or short-levying has occurred as a reason of any fraud,...
Union of India Through Secretary, Govt. of India Ministry of Communica ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR816; 1998(2)BomCR874
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. This is a revision application against the Order dated 23rd October 1996 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 208/94/A by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji. By the impugned Order the trial Court had held that it had jurisdiction to try and entertain the application filed by the respondent's herein under section 8 read with section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the petitioner. From the pleadings in the application filed before the trial Court it appears that some dispute had arisen in relation to the execution of the work tendered to the respondents under Work Order dated 3rd October 1992. Undisputedly the work order was issued at Nasik, State of Maharashtra and the work consisted of construction of 6 'B' type and 6 'C' type staff quarters for postal Civil Division at Ratnagiri, again within the Slate of Maharashtra. The trial Court, observing that as per the Explanation to section 20 of Civil Procedure Code the petitioners shall be deemed t...
Burroughs Wellcome (India) Ltd. Vs. Uni-sole Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR290; 1998(3)BomCR481
ORDERS.H. Kapadia, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using in relation to their product (Tablets) the impugned carton, a photograph of which is annexed at Exh. H to the plaint or any other deceptively similar carton. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants manufacture antibiotics known in the trade as 'Septran Tables' and 'Simptran Tablets' respectively. The plaintiffs claim to be the registered Proprietors of the trade mark 'Septran' since 1969. They also claim to be the owner of copy rights in various labels and artistic work used by them on their cartons in relation to their product Septran tablets. It is the case of the plaintiffs that since 1993 after discontinuance for about 7 years, the defendants have once again started indulging in colourable imitation in plaintiffs trade marks and artistic labels/cartons and is passing off their product as if associated with the plaintiffs. The plaintiff...
Bharat Falora Dhiwar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR24; 1999BomCR(Cri)24
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1997, is the original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1996 on the file of the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. He was tried along with his mother for offences punishable under section 363, 376, 302 and 201 either simpliciter or with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days fo...
Rani Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR115; 1997(4)BomCR198
M.B. Shah, C.J.1. These applications for referring the dispute for arbitration are filed by petitioners Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd., against Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Contentions raised in all these applications are identical. Facts are similar. Hence, all these matters are disposed of by this common judgment. With regard to the Exhibits and other particulars, I have referred to Miscellaneous Application No. 50 of 1997. Written submissions given by the learned Counsel for the respondents are taken on record. At the outset it is required to be observed that most of the objections raised against referring the matter to arbitrators are without any substance.2. The petitioners M/s. Rani Constructions Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Goa, have filed these applications under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) for appointment of a qualified, independent and impartial arbitrator as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate ...
Abdul Wasim S/O Mohammed Faruq Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)345; 1998(1)MhLj157
ORDERS.B. Mhase, J. 1. The petition is directed against the order of externment passed under section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, in an Externment Proceeding No. 59/1996, dated 16th October, 1996 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-III, Nagpur, externing the petitioner for a period of two years from the area of Nagpur Police Commissionerate and Nagpur Rural District.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner objected to the said order on the following grounds, namely :(a) Non-application of mind by the authority ; (b) Secret complaints are false and concocted ; (c) Non-compliance of section 10(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as the Assistant Commissioner of Police has no power to issue notice and record the evidence of the witnesses; and (d) Notice issued is under section 56(1)(a) ; however, ingredients referred to in the notice are of section 56(1)(b).3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the grounds ra...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »